PA121 From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 98 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1735 times:
I was wondering if any of you knew which one is cheaper to operate (just standard cost per seat- regardless considerations about maintanance or fleet commonality) between the 737-500 in 2 class layout (110 pax) and the RJ-100 (in BA config. which is 110 pax as well).
Thanks for the info
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2809 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
No, i think he means Avro RJ-100. it'd be mighty interesting with a CRJ-100 seating 110 people. In you analysis, do you take maintainence factors into account as well? Also, what kind of distances are we talking about here?
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11150 posts, RR: 60 Reply 5, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1607 times:
Comparing the Avro RJ-100 with the 737-500 is like comparing an apple with an orange. No difference between the 2 fruits, when tastes like a regular fruit, while the other is a tangy citrusy fruit.
They're 2 completely different aircraft designed for different purposes, even though capacity wise they are similar.
The Avro RJ-100 is truly a special niche aircraft designed for short hops, and to fly into unprepared or extremely short strips where other airlines cannot fly into.
Infact, the Avro RJ-100 can fly into places a CRJ-200 cannot.
The Avro RJ-100 is really a special aircraft designed for special purposes, which is why they are not very popular by airlines. They are also relatively expensive to operate, but there versatile abilities are what made them sell.
The Avro RJ-100 is probably the best aircraft when it comes to short mountain hops. No western airliner beats it. This is why it's popular by airlines like SWISS and Air Wisconsin.
Although airlines have been using them on routes a CRJ or a 737 could go these days as mountain flying is limited to only certain areas such as the US Rocky Mountains, the Alps in Europe, and the Himalayas in Asia.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Now, obviously there are a few things that need to be looked at. The cruise speed is not high for the 146 (about M0.64 vs 0.74) thus things like maintenance & crew costs will be higher per sector (especially if above 350-400 nm per leg) than the 733. If we were able to look at an MD80, then this would be more obvious.
Fuel burn per hour also will even out over a longer haul/per passenger uplifted. However, another major consideration is the number of sectors an airplane will be able to achieve in a given day. If the 733 can get in an extra sector in the work day (say over the BNE/SYD/MEL markets) then the utilisation will more then make up for the higher capital cost. But also not considered at this time, is the load factor - if with a smaller airplane, you can get a higher load factor, this may account for some of the higher ASK charges that will come about. The lower ANC's & landing weights will reduce operating costs, but the lower passenger numbers will also reduce revenue opportunities.
Hope this information is useful
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
PA121 From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Thank you very much for the very detailed answers.
The reason why I posted the request is because I would like to file a complaint to BA for the recent switch from 737 to RJ 100 here at Manchester and I wanted to sustantiate it with some data.
I never noticed the RJ 100 was actually slowler than the 737, and even if the difference seems not huge, it still makes a difference on a 2 hours leg, flights now tend to arrive late more frequently. (Also there always seems to be something broken on the Avros! In the last 3 trips I enjoyed a fault on coffee machines, on the lavatories and a return to the gate due to the fuel tank not properly closed).
I am sure BA is making money from this move, but as a passenger sitting in the 3-3 layout of the BA Avro I am not so happy.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12166 posts, RR: 35 Reply 9, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1467 times:
PA121, I can empathise with your situation; down here in Jersey, we had to suffer these odious aircraft for quite a while, until BA sent them packing to MAN. We went from A320s on LHR-JER, to RJ100s from LGW-JER, so the RJ100 was adding insult to the injury of the LHR slot loss.
But now it's back to 737s; civilisation has returned!
PA121 From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 98 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (11 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1434 times:
I am glad I am not the only one who doesn't like the Avros! (And BTW they are not so bad in the 2-3 config - Swiss and SN for example).
Manchester is the lucky city now - all Avros and flight attendants and in flight service reduced to the bare minimum.
OK, prices are better now. It means that when Easy Jet and Ryanair will arrive we will all choose them over BA on the basis of better service and aircrafts!
(That's what I will write to BA, but I am sure they will not care a lot about me...)